webhook_retry_schedule

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool calculates and shows results, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it sends no webhooks or mention edge cases like invalid inputs or jitter behavior. Moderate transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that front-load the action and describe the output. No filler words—every phrase adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the tool's purpose and output shape, but with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, it leaves some ambiguity about return format and boundary conditions. Still, it is sufficient for a calculation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds limited context by mentioning exponential backoff and jitter, which map to existing parameters. It does not explain parameter relationships or formulas beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('retry schedule'), explicitly naming the algorithm (exponential backoff) and output components (delay, cumulative time, scheduled timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like webhook_send or webhook_validate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for planning retry timing but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what conditions warrant this tool. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.